## Facts

- The schooner began as an American vessel registered in Baltimore and was sent to the West Indies with instructions to sell the ship.
- In St. Thomas (then a Danish colony), the master made a bona fide sale of the vessel for value to Jared Shattuck, a merchant domiciled in St. Thomas who had taken an oath of allegiance to Denmark in 1797.
- Shattuck renamed the vessel the *Charming Betsy*, loaded a new cargo, and cleared from St. Thomas for Guadeloupe.
- A French privateer captured the vessel and directed it toward Guadeloupe.
- The U.S. frigate *Constellation*, commanded by Alexander Murray, recaptured the vessel; the cargo was sold at Martinique and the vessel was brought to the United States.
- Murray sought condemnation under the 1800 non-intercourse statute suspending commercial intercourse between the United States and France and French dependencies, arguing the purported Danish sale masked continued American ownership and unlawful trade.
- Shattuck, appearing through the Danish consul, sought restitution and damages for the seizure and sale.

## Issues

1. Whether the *Charming Betsy* and cargo, owned by a neutral Danish subject domiciled in St. Thomas, were forfeitable under the 1800 non-intercourse statute directed at commerce with France and its dependencies.
2. Whether the statute could be construed to reach neutral commerce based on the vessel’s American origin, former American ownership, or the owner’s U.S. birth.
3. Whether the recaptors were entitled to salvage or protected from liability based on probable cause or the vessel’s alleged armament.
4. Whether damages for the illegal capture and cargo sale were properly assessed when commissioners reported a single unexplained gross sum.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the recapture and resulting condemnation effort were unlawful because the vessel was Danish-owned at the relevant time and not within the statute’s forfeiture reach.
- The Court construed the non-intercourse statute to avoid violating neutral rights and the law of nations where a lawful construction permitted that result.
- The Court treated Shattuck as a Danish subject for commercial purposes, based on long-standing domicile and his oath of allegiance to Denmark.
- The Court set aside the damages award because the commissioners’ report stated a gross sum without explanatory detail, an error apparent on the record.
- The Court rejected vindictive (punitive) damages against a naval officer acting under orders and in good faith, limiting recovery to proper compensatory damages on remand.

## Legal Principles

- An act of Congress should not be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains; statutes should not be read to impair neutral rights beyond what international law permits.
- Long-term foreign domicile and an affirmative change of political allegiance may confer the commercial privileges of the foreign domicile, placing the person outside generally worded domestic trade prohibitions aimed at U.S. residents and citizens.
- A bona fide transfer of a vessel to a neutral owner gives the vessel a neutral character for purposes of seizure and condemnation under domestic law.
- In assessing damages for an illegal maritime capture, a commissioners’ damages report must explain the basis for the sum awarded; an unexplained gross sum may be set aside even absent specific exceptions.
- Public officers executing maritime duties under governmental orders should not be subjected to vindictive damages for reasonable mistakes; liability should be limited to appropriate compensation when the seizure is unlawful.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated the seizure of a Danish-owned vessel under the U.S. non-intercourse act and announced the rule that federal statutes should be construed, when fairly possible, to avoid conflicts with the law of nations and neutral rights, while remanding for a properly itemized compensatory damages assessment without punitive damages against the naval officer.


Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64 (1804)